I got all of your points made, I just, again, don't agree. Besides, my point has been pretty simple. I didn't bring up the past as a sticking point of contention, I'm saying it voids the narrative that Sony games have always been heaps better in this department. The budgets argument (the main argument) is what I'm contesting. You say "hardly any publisher can afford what Sony does" but then use Microsoft as a point of reference. They could easily spend what Sony does, but if the talent isn't there, it will matter much less. It takes something, in addition to, a sizeable budget to compete with Sony on graphics and fidelity.
It's why people go after Sony's dev acquisitions much less. Sony buys the teams for the talent they provide and the relationship they have with them. Insomniac, for example, has always made quality products for PlayStation. Sure, a bigger budget allows for their talent to go further, no argument there, but if they weren't Insomniac, that budget would carry far less weight.
For Microsoft, they also bought talent and obviously have the funds to compete. They just need to use those two things in tandem to truly be able to compete with the best of the best from Sony. Ninja Theory's Hellblade II looks phenomenal. Why? Because that team not only has the budget — they specialize in that sort of production. Not every team would pull that off, regardless of the budget.